citizens havea range of divergent views, and which countries seem to speak on the world stage in an ideological monotone.
In North America and Europe, debates are raging about the failures of the current trading system. And yet such diversity of public opinion is rarely attributed to citizens of Third World countries. Instead, they are lumped into one homogenous entity, spoken for by dubiously elected politicians or, better yet, discredited ones such as Mexico’s former president Ernesto Zedillo, now calling for an international campaign against “globophobes.”
The truth is that no one can speak on behalf of Latin America’s five hundred million inhabitants, least of all Zedillo, whose party’s defeat was in large part a repudiation of NAFTA’s record. All over the Americas, market liberalization is a subject of extreme dispute. The debate is not over whether foreign investment and trade are desirable—Latin America and the Caribbean are already organized into regional trading blocs such as Mercosur. The debate is about democracy: what terms and conditions will poor countries be told they must meet in order to qualify for admission to the global trade club?
Argentina, the host of next week’s FTAA meeting, is currently in open revolt over massive cuts to social spending— almost US$8 billion over three years—that have been introduced in order to qualify for an IMF loan package. Last week, three cabinet ministers resigned, unions staged a general strike and university instructors moved their classes to the streets.
Though anger at wrenching austerity measures has focused primarily on the IMF, across the continent it israpidly expanding to encompass trade deals such as the proposed FTAA. For proof of the dangers, many Latin Americans look to Mexico. The North American Free Trade Agreement came into force on January 1, 1994, and seven years later, three-quarters of the population of Mexico live in poverty, real wages are lower than they were in 1994 and unemployment is rising. So despite the claims that the rest of Latin America wants a NAFTA to call its own, the central labour associations of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay—representing twenty million workers—have come out against the plan. They are now calling for countrywide referendums on FTAA membership. [As is Brazilian presidential candidate Lula da Silva who, at the time of writing, was pegged to win the October 2002 elections.]
Brazil, meanwhile, has threatened to boycott the Quebec summit altogether, furious at Canada’s ban on Brazilian beef. Ottawa cited safety concerns but Brazilians think it had more to do with Canadian resentment over Brazil’s subsidized jet manufacturing. The Brazilian government is also wary that the FTAA will contain protections for drug companies that will threaten its visionary public health policy of providing free generic AIDS drugs to anyone who needs them.
Defenders of free trade would have us believe in the facile equation of trade = democracy. The people who will greet our trade ministers on the streets of Buenos Aires next week are posing a more complex and challenging calculation: how much democracy should they be asked to give up in exchange for trade?
IMF Go to Hell
The people of Argentina have tried the IMF approach; now they want a turn to govern the country
March 2002
On the same day that Argentine President Eduardo Duhalde was embroiled in yet another fruitless negotiation with the International Monetary Fund, a group of Buenos Aires residents were going through a negotiation of a different kind. On a sunny Tuesday earlier this month, they were trying to save themselves from eviction. The residents of 335 Ayacucho, including nineteen children, barricaded themselves inside their home, located just blocks away from the national congress, and refused to leave. On the concrete facade of the house, a hand-printed sign said, “IMF Go to Hell.”
It may seem strange that an institution as decidedly
In North America and Europe, debates are raging about the failures of the current trading system. And yet such diversity of public opinion is rarely attributed to citizens of Third World countries. Instead, they are lumped into one homogenous entity, spoken for by dubiously elected politicians or, better yet, discredited ones such as Mexico’s former president Ernesto Zedillo, now calling for an international campaign against “globophobes.”
The truth is that no one can speak on behalf of Latin America’s five hundred million inhabitants, least of all Zedillo, whose party’s defeat was in large part a repudiation of NAFTA’s record. All over the Americas, market liberalization is a subject of extreme dispute. The debate is not over whether foreign investment and trade are desirable—Latin America and the Caribbean are already organized into regional trading blocs such as Mercosur. The debate is about democracy: what terms and conditions will poor countries be told they must meet in order to qualify for admission to the global trade club?
Argentina, the host of next week’s FTAA meeting, is currently in open revolt over massive cuts to social spending— almost US$8 billion over three years—that have been introduced in order to qualify for an IMF loan package. Last week, three cabinet ministers resigned, unions staged a general strike and university instructors moved their classes to the streets.
Though anger at wrenching austerity measures has focused primarily on the IMF, across the continent it israpidly expanding to encompass trade deals such as the proposed FTAA. For proof of the dangers, many Latin Americans look to Mexico. The North American Free Trade Agreement came into force on January 1, 1994, and seven years later, three-quarters of the population of Mexico live in poverty, real wages are lower than they were in 1994 and unemployment is rising. So despite the claims that the rest of Latin America wants a NAFTA to call its own, the central labour associations of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay—representing twenty million workers—have come out against the plan. They are now calling for countrywide referendums on FTAA membership. [As is Brazilian presidential candidate Lula da Silva who, at the time of writing, was pegged to win the October 2002 elections.]
Brazil, meanwhile, has threatened to boycott the Quebec summit altogether, furious at Canada’s ban on Brazilian beef. Ottawa cited safety concerns but Brazilians think it had more to do with Canadian resentment over Brazil’s subsidized jet manufacturing. The Brazilian government is also wary that the FTAA will contain protections for drug companies that will threaten its visionary public health policy of providing free generic AIDS drugs to anyone who needs them.
Defenders of free trade would have us believe in the facile equation of trade = democracy. The people who will greet our trade ministers on the streets of Buenos Aires next week are posing a more complex and challenging calculation: how much democracy should they be asked to give up in exchange for trade?
IMF Go to Hell
The people of Argentina have tried the IMF approach; now they want a turn to govern the country
March 2002
On the same day that Argentine President Eduardo Duhalde was embroiled in yet another fruitless negotiation with the International Monetary Fund, a group of Buenos Aires residents were going through a negotiation of a different kind. On a sunny Tuesday earlier this month, they were trying to save themselves from eviction. The residents of 335 Ayacucho, including nineteen children, barricaded themselves inside their home, located just blocks away from the national congress, and refused to leave. On the concrete facade of the house, a hand-printed sign said, “IMF Go to Hell.”
It may seem strange that an institution as decidedly
Similar Books
